Trump is such a sick joke it would pay the American left (does one exist?) to let him run his full presidential term unimpeded and do his worst. By the time your next presidential elections come around the public will likely be so jack of him that they will be crying out for a candidate who is Trump's exact antithesis.

America would never elect Adolf Hitler as POTUS

“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Trump is such a sick joke it would pay the American left (does one exist?) to let him run his full presidential term unimpeded and do his worst. By the time your next presidential elections come around the public will likely be so jack of him that they will be crying out for a candidate who is Trump's exact antithesis.

America would never elect Adolf Hitler as POTUS

Nice riposte doc but I am sure you know that that was not what I meant.

Trump is such a sick joke it would pay the American left (does one exist?) to let him run his full presidential term unimpeded and do his worst. By the time your next presidential elections come around the public will likely be so jack of him that they will be crying out for a candidate who is Trump's exact antithesis.

America would never elect Adolf Hitler as POTUS

Nice riposte doc but I am sure you know that that was not what I meant.

Am I remembering incorrect;y that you in the past have complained about me saying that progressives and Fascists were the same thing?

Smith explores Rand’s contention that America was sliding down a slippery slope to fascism.

In a letter written on March 19, 1944, Ayn Rand remarked: “Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism are only superficial variations of the same monstrous theme—collectivism.” Rand would later expand on this insight in various articles, most notably in two of her lectures at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston: “The Fascist New Frontier” (Dec. 16, 1962, published as a booklet by the Nathaniel Branden Institute in 1963); and “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus” (April 18, 1965, published as Chapter 20 in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal [CUI] by New American Library in 1967).

Rand knew better than to accept the traditional left-right dichotomy between socialism (or communism) and fascism, according to which socialism is the extreme version of left-ideology and fascism is the extreme version of right-ideology (i.e., capitalism). Indeed, in The Ayn Rand Letter (Nov. 8, 1971) she characterized fascism as “socialism for big business.” Both are variants of statism, in contrast to a free country based on individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism. As Rand put it in “Conservativism: An Obituary” (CUI, Chapter 19):

The world conflict of today is the conflict of the individual against the state, the same conflict that has been fought throughout mankind’s history. The names change, but the essence—and the results—remain the same, whether it is the individual against feudalism, or against absolute monarchy, or against communism or fascism or Nazism or socialism or the welfare state.

The placement of socialism and fascism at opposite ends of a political spectrum serves a nefarious purpose, according to Rand. It serves to buttress the case that we must avoid “extremism” and choose the sensible middle course of a “mixed economy.” Quoting from “‘Extremism,’ Or The Art of Smearing” (CUI, Chapter 17):

If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two “extremes” at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, “moderate” middle—with a “moderate” amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a “moderate” amount of government handouts to the poor—with a “moderate” respect for rights and a “moderate” degree of brute force—with a “moderate” amount of freedom and a “moderate” amount of slavery—with a “moderate” degree of justice and a “moderate” degree of injustice—with a “moderate” amount of security and a “moderate” amount of terror—and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.

In both of her major articles on fascism (cited above) Rand distinguished between fascism and socialism by noting a rather technical (and ultimately inconsequential) difference in their approaches to private property. Here is the relevant passage from “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus”:

Observe that both “socialism” and “fascism” involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates “the vesting of ownership and control” in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government.

Hitler summed up the philosophy Communism, Socialism, and Fascism quite well in his Nazi 25 points

"COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD"

Which is the base moral justification of all three. The moral to take things from individuals in the name of the god "Common Good" Even their lives. IE "Common Good" rather than God judges all things.

So if you feel that is not true then show me where I am wrong, rather than simply stating you are tired of reading my "Progressives are literally Fascists" comments.

“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Which is the base moral justification of all three. The moral to take things from individuals in the name of the god "Common Good" Even their lives. IE "Common Good" rather than God judges all things.

The funny thing is that the Catholic Church is one of the staunchest promotor of the "common good" idea. So Common Good cannot be opposed to God...

Common Good

The common good is the complete development of all the people of the world. John XXIII describes it as ‘the sum total of conditions of social living, whereby persons are enabled more fully and readily to achieve their own perfection.’ Mater et Magistra – “Mother and Teacher” (1961), paragraph 65

The idea therefore differs from that of pursuing the ‘greatest good for the greatest number,’ with which it is sometimes confused, because the pursuit of the common good entrusts, both to the government and the Church, care for the greatest good of all persons, not just the greatest possible number. No individual is excluded from the common good. It is also therefore linked to the ideas of human dignity and authentic and integral human development, making them central aims of all societies.

The Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales describe the notion in terms of interdependency: ‘Because we are interdependent, the common good is more like a multiplication sum, where if any one number is zero then the total is always zero. If anyone is left out and deprived of what is essential, then the common good has been betrayed.’ Choosing the Common Good, paragraph 8.

The common good also provides a balance against too strong an individualism by emphasising the social aspect of the human person. Authentic development is possible only if an individual interacts with and grows within a society. Thus each of us is required to work for the common good which includes all others within society. Even property of its nature also has a social aspect which is based on the law of the common purpose of goods. Gaudium et Spes – “The Joys and Hopes” (1965), paragraph 7

Which is the base moral justification of all three. The moral to take things from individuals in the name of the god "Common Good" Even their lives. IE "Common Good" rather than God judges all things.

The funny thing is that the Catholic Church is one of the staunchest promotor of the "common good" idea. So Common Good cannot be opposed to God...

Common Good

The common good is the complete development of all the people of the world. John XXIII describes it as ‘the sum total of conditions of social living, whereby persons are enabled more fully and readily to achieve their own perfection.’ Mater et Magistra – “Mother and Teacher” (1961), paragraph 65

The idea therefore differs from that of pursuing the ‘greatest good for the greatest number,’ with which it is sometimes confused, because the pursuit of the common good entrusts, both to the government and the Church, care for the greatest good of all persons, not just the greatest possible number. No individual is excluded from the common good. It is also therefore linked to the ideas of human dignity and authentic and integral human development, making them central aims of all societies.

The Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales describe the notion in terms of interdependency: ‘Because we are interdependent, the common good is more like a multiplication sum, where if any one number is zero then the total is always zero. If anyone is left out and deprived of what is essential, then the common good has been betrayed.’ Choosing the Common Good, paragraph 8.

The common good also provides a balance against too strong an individualism by emphasising the social aspect of the human person. Authentic development is possible only if an individual interacts with and grows within a society. Thus each of us is required to work for the common good which includes all others within society. Even property of its nature also has a social aspect which is based on the law of the common purpose of goods. Gaudium et Spes – “The Joys and Hopes” (1965), paragraph 7

Unfortunately, neither you nor I nor the Catholic Church will ever be able to persuade all the neocon posters on this website that there is such a thing as the common good. Crass materialists all, they seem to believe only in cutthroat individualist competition and survival of the fittest: anathema to informed Catholics and all other people of sound mind.

Pope Francis Long Knew of Cardinal’s Abuse and Must Resign, Archbishop Says

COMMON GOOD

The common good is the complete development of all the people of the world. John XXIII describes it as ‘the sum total of conditions of social living, whereby persons are enabled more fully and readily to achieve their own perfection.’ Mater et Magistra – “Mother and Teacher” (1961), paragraph 65

The idea therefore differs from that of pursuing the ‘greatest good for the greatest number,’ with which it is sometimes confused, because the pursuit of the common good entrusts, both to the government and the Church, care for the greatest good of all persons, not just the greatest possible number. No individual is excluded from the common good. It is also therefore linked to the ideas of human dignity and authentic and integral human development, making them central aims of all societies.

The Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales describe the notion in terms of interdependency: ‘Because we are interdependent, the common good is more like a multiplication sum, where if any one number is zero then the total is always zero. If anyone is left out and deprived of what is essential, then the common good has been betrayed.’ Choosing the Common Good, paragraph 8.

The common good also provides a balance against too strong an individualism by emphasising the social aspect of the human person. Authentic development is possible only if an individual interacts with and grows within a society. Thus each of us is required to work for the common good which includes all others within society. Even property of its nature also has a social aspect which is based on the law of the common purpose of goods. Gaudium et Spes – “The Joys and Hopes” (1965), paragraph 7

Nothing in there about stealing what belongs to others. You only addressed half of HItler's statement. I am speaking to "Common Good" being held up as god. When you take the "before the individual good" part out you completely change the point.

Beyond that a "common good"Inherently means there is a "common bad" So HItler's statement could have been "Common Good before individual bad" as what is bad for an individual is can be the "common good" So to accept "Common Good before the individual good" as a rule is to inherently justify in principle things like the holocaust.

"good" and "bad" are both subjective terms. Christianity is about individuals judging what is good and what is bad. "Thou shall not kill" is pretty clear. And so is "Thou shall not steal"

So is it the "Common Good" that Pope Francis not resign over the charge that he knew there was a pedophile scandal by a high ranking Bishop?

The purpose of the Church according to the teachings of Jesus Christ is to remind everyone that there is a social contract between all individuals that they should be good. That they should love their neighbor as they love themselves. Who is the neighbor of "common good" of leftist ideology? Certainly not the "individual good" as the ideology is the "COMMON GOOD BEFORE THE INDIVIDUAL GOOD"

“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros